BHA: RE: Re: what's next

["Phil Walden" <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Caroline, Mervyn,

Caroline, what is the 'key concepts' approach?

Mervyn, I suggest a discussion of whether Bhaskar's approach to dialectics
squares with that of Hegel (in the SCIENCE OF LOGIC) and that of Marx
(outlined in GRUNDRISSE), and if not why are the dialectics of these great
thinkers not commensurate? That should get to the nub of things. It would
certainly lead to an answer to Ruth's question about the relationship
between materialism and critical realism.

Am I the only lister who finds the (non)-debate between social
constructionism and "realism" extremely artificial? It seems to be a way of
avoiding dialectics altogether. How, Mervyn, is Archer "beginning to nibble
at dialectics"? If somebody who wants to discuss Archer's book could briefly
outline how they think it is relevant to an assessment of Bhaskar's
DIALECTIC, I for one would be grateful.

Phil Walden



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Caroline
> New
> Sent: 24 January 2001 11:59
> To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: BHA: Re: what's next
>
>
> Ruth asks for lurkers to come out.  I would like a group reading of 'Being
> Human', and then go back to DPF, using the 'key concepts' (!) approach.
> Caroline
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 5:30 PM
> Subject: BHA: what's next
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Ruth wrote:
> > >what in the bejeezis are we going to do about breathing
> > >some life back into our extremely quiet list?!  A good healthy
> discussion
> > >about whether one can be a critical realist but not be a
> materialist?  A
> > >return to RTS?  Or DPF?  Something else?  PON?  Any ideas?  Any takers?
> >
> > I suggest a reading and discussion of:
> >
> > Margaret S. Archer, Being Human: the Problem of Agency. Cambridge
> > University Press, 2000. 323pp paperback 0 521 79564 8
> >
> > The third in a trilogy, this deals with the agential basis of her social
> > theory. It is a big book in more than one sense, one that any (D)CR
> > person will need to read no matter what their particular focus. This is
> > what the blurb says:
> >
> > 'Humanity and the very notion of the human subject are under threat from
> > postmodernist thinking which has declared not only the 'Death of God'
> > but also the 'Death of Man'. This book is a revindication of the concept
> > of humanity, rejecting contemporary social theory that seeks to diminish
> > human properties and powers. Archer argues that being human depends on
> > an interaction with the real world in which practice takes primacy over
> > language in the emergence of human self-consciousness, thought,
> > emotionality and personal identity  - all of which are prior to, and
> > more basic than, our acquisition of a social identity.'
> >
> > *Being Human* strikes some mighty blows against subjective (linguistic)
> > idealism and social constructionism and would provide a platform for
> > discussing just about anything within the (D)CR canon. Notwithstanding
> > its appropriation of some marxist concepts (including 'the primacy of
> > practice') I think the book is ultimately profoundly liberal in its
> > worldview and helps to provide a window on the soul of the later
> > Bhaskar.
> >
> > Our DPF reading clearly got somewhat bogged down. I think we should put
> > it aside for a time - for dipping into now that we've digested a goodly
> > chunk of it, rather than wading through - and focus on material that
> > listers find more digestible. All the issues raised by the Bhaskarian
> > canon could still be brought up. Though I think operating predominantly
> > within the analytical problematic, Archer is beginning to nibble at
> > dialectics...
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't know the price of the book but it shouldn't be
> > too much, being a paperback. We'd have to wait a bit for people to get
> > copies... If listers wanted a more detailed idea of contents before
> > deciding, I could provide that.
> >
> > Mervyn
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> >
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---